49. It is much more important to overcome
any practical difficulties in using the existing powers than to
seek to gain significant new ones while the existing powers are
little used, but we nonetheless endorse careful consideration
of the way in which the procedures could be amended in order to
facilitate better regulation (paragraph 16).

50. The provision of a detailed list of possible
uses of each of the extended powers will be essential when Parliament
comes to consider any bill resulting from the Government's present
proposals (paragraph 17).

51. Effective consultation is essential to
maintain confidence in the deregulation system and to ensure that
proposals have been tested by the opinion of those who would be
affected by them. We attach considerable importance to Dr Cunningham's
reassurance to us that the Government has "no plans to reduce
the consultation procedure laid down in the Act" (paragraph
18).

ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN BURDENS

52. We regard it as essential that Ministers
should specify in which areas of activity they see it as potentially
desirable to be able to use this very wide power. Moreover, in
our view any amending legislation should specify on the face of
the bill what are the criteria - such as proportionality and that
the proposal "did not adversely affect any right or freedom
which those concerned might reasonably expect to be able to continue
to enjoy" (Q 18) - by which Ministers will decide that they
may impose additional burdens "in the interests of the greater
good". Although we appreciate the reasons for Ministers wanting
this additional power, without more information as to the activities
potentially to be covered, and an assurance as to the inclusion
of appropriate criteria, we would find it difficult to support
this proposal (paragraph 23).

REMOVING AMBIGUITIES IN THE LAW

53. The Committee considers that the Law Commission,
with its wealth of experience, is an important body to consult
on uncertainties of this kind (paragraphs 24-25).

PERMITTING RESTRICTIONS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE REGULATORS
AS WELL AS THE REGULATED

54. The Committee can see force in the case
for the extension of this power to include local government and
statutory organisations (paragraph 33).

55. We have, however, considerable reservations
about the extension of the power to include central government,
since it would mean that government could, by means of delegated
legislation, propose the removal of statutory burdens on itself.
We are also concerned that this power might be used, as the consultation
paper itself points out, in conjunction with others "such
as being able to impose a small additional burden in order to
remove a burden from others". This aspect of the Government's
proposals would merit particularly careful scrutiny in any draft
bill (paragraph 34).

EXTENDING THE POWER TO REGULATIONS UNDER THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES ACT 1972

56. The Committee sees no need for this extended
power, and does not support it (paragraph 36).

PERMITTING CHANGES TO RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY COMMON
LAW

57. This part of the Government's proposals
might be reasonable, provided that, on each occasion, the Law
Commission was consulted. But we do not at present have sufficient
information about, or justification for, what is proposed for
us to form a definitive view at this stage (paragraph 38).

EXTENDING THE POWER TO POST 1994 LEGISLATION

58. We support to some extent this part of
the Government's proposals, but do not accept a totally open-ended
power. As currently drafted, this aspect of the proposal would
increase the tendency for ill-considered legislation, as legislation
could be introduced one session and deregulated the next. We also
consider that there would be some risk of legislative instability
in the event of a change of Government. We therefore suggest that
the proposal should be revised to provide a three-year cut-off
(paragraph 40).

59. As an alternative to taking this sweeping
power we would much prefer the use of an annual redundant legislation
bill as a vehicle to tidy up the statute book (paragraph 41).

PERMITTING ORDERS TO BE PROGRESSED IF THE COMMITTEES
ISSUE REPORTS BEFORE THE END OF THE FULL 60 DAY INITIAL SCRUTINY
PERIOD

60. Although the thinking behind this part
of the Government's proposals has its attractions in theory, we
cannot see how it could sensibly operate in practice, and therefore,
reluctantly, we cannot support it (paragraph 44).

61. We do not consider that the second scrutiny
stage (for which 15 sitting days are allowed in the Commons, and
in practice the Lords Committee has always reported well within
that timescale) causes "unnecessary delays in the process",
and recommend that second stage scrutiny should be retained (paragraph
46).

THE COMMITTEE'S ADDITIONAL SUGGESTION FOR LAW COMMISSION
PROPOSALS

62. The Committee suggests that the Government's
proposals should be modified to provide the possibility of a fast
track procedure for parliamentary approval of the considerable
back-log of non-controversial Law Commission proposals (paragraph
47).[16]